April 16, 2010
"Down our throats in March/Up their [ass] in November."
I'm looking at the details of yesterday's Tea Party photos and cropping. It's interesting what you notice an instant before you'd have hit delete:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
59 comments:
That is a good sign.
And it comports with that WaPo story you linked below.
That sign does not say "up their [ass]."
It says "up their ... and then the Democrat Party donkey logo is inserted."
SO, it says: "Up their [Democrat Party logo]."
The word "ass" was deliberately not used.
You need to be more precise, Ann.
And I'd be very careful about cropping photos in order to paint people in a bad light and misquote what their signs say.
I'd expect that over at Talking Points Memo, but I wouldn't expect that here.
Didn't quite understand it until I saw the sign. It sounds like Barney Frank's calendar.
@Ham You don't understand brackets?
Damn, Ham is getting testy today.
What happens if nothing really happens in Nov I wonder. Taking control of the Senate is near impossible, and the Repubs would need to pickup 40 seats in the House. Would be a pretty crushing reality to wake up Nov 2 knowing the plan to cram something up the Dems ass had failed after expending all this energy.
My cropping is akin to using a zoom lens and framing. I'm trying to get closer to interesting details and to make better compositions. There's nothing unfair about it.
What happens if nothing really happens in Nov I wonder.
Well then those of us who think having a $1.5 trillion deficit and adding another $10 trillion to the debt over the next decade will just have to take a bite of the shit sandwich while your side can jump with glee that you're finally succeeding in economically destroying the country.
Personally I don't really care anymore. If the majority of the country is stupid enough to think we can sustain this kind of spending and will be happy with pre-Kennedy tax rates and a 20% VAT than so be it.
Would be a pretty crushing reality to wake up Nov 2
Actually garage, the crushing reality is going to be the day when we have a Treasury auction and no one shows up. But hey don't let the reality of mathematics and economics get in the way of your dreams of unicorns for everyone.
November will be a crushing reality one way or the other, it's just who gets crushed. One thing is for sure: the Dems will not be better off than now.
Hoosier is concerned. About Democratic spending. The amount of the deficit Obama inherited is irrelevant. But not so concerned I'm willing to bet $100 he didn't notice the deficit actually went down last month.
GREECE!
The biggest factor is the economy, which has much less to do with politics than we pretend. It's on a different rail mostly influenced by millions of non-politicians around the world making self-interested decisions everyday.
Political power is limited by nature to tools that mostly hurt the economy. You can make people not want to take financial risks, but it's much harder for policy to make you take them, and taking risks is the engine of growth. Relinquishing power is the only long term way to grow an economy. Look around the world; it's an obvious and unblemished fact.
The economy decides the politics, not the other way around. If politicians could improve the economy, we would never have problems. The problem is they think they can by controlling rather than relinquishing power. They only get very short term bumps, like giving an addict some cash, but long term stagnation is the real outcome.
The Tea Party signers seem to be more spirited and more creative than the libs who dominate the entertainment and advertising industry. David Letterman should consider hiring a few of the really good sign writers.
Hoosier is concerned. About Democratic spending. The amount of the deficit Obama inherited is irrelevant.
And right on cue garage is pulling the inheritance Obama got. Yes its irrelevant because when you 'inherit' a deficit its common sense to not make it worse. How about you try and honest approach to debate for a change rather than continually erect strawmen? I've been consistent in my fiscal conservatism.
But not so concerned I'm willing to bet $100 he didn't notice the deficit actually went down last month.
Save your money garage.
The newspaper said if the trend continued for the rest of the year it would mean the annual deficit would be $1.3 trillion -- about $300 billion less than the administration's projection two months ago for 2010.
"While the positive news is welcome, it is premature and irresponsible to be making deficit projections for the fiscal year as a whole," said Kenneth Baer, spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget
See garage, that 'defict reduction' you wanted to bet your money on is a projection. Like Clinton's surplus was a projection which means in order to get to D you needed to have A+B+C happen.
It's the equivalent of saying the check is in the mail.
Here's CNN's take on rally signs: " Letting disgruntled citizens vent is important to national security, experts say, but some messages emanating from angry Americans in recent weeks have pressed the boundaries of free speech."
The crafty Tea Parties press boundaries. Their "disturbing" rhetoric now is "protected," but it is "angry." First we "loosely lump" the angry Americans with "the hate groups." Then we tighten the association. The rational solution then will be to suppress the angry mob while acknowledging the legitimacy of the marketplace of ideas.
Further down, the author does politely observe, "Extreme rhetoric is not merely a product of conservative voices, however."
Hoosier Daddy said...
Well then those of us who think having a $1.5 trillion deficit and adding another $10 trillion to the debt over the next decade will just have to take a bite of the shit sandwich.
When I said something along those lines after Bush and the Republican leadership rammed (in a way that makes what Obama and the Democratic leadership did look like a beautiful loving act between consenting adults) through Medicare Part D, I was called deranged. We won't know for years, but (strictly from a budget/deficit perspective) my guess is that Medicare Part D will end up costing more than Obamacare.
""Down our throats in March/Up their [ass] in November.""
Need to get me a t-shirt made.
garage mahal said...
What happens if nothing really happens in Nov I wonder. Taking control of the Senate is near impossible, and the Repubs would need to pickup 40 seats in the House. Would be a pretty crushing reality to wake up Nov 2 knowing the plan to cram something up the Dems ass had failed after expending all this energy.
Most people understand it will take 2 election cycles to start to straighten out this mess, the same way it took for the Demos to get control. Hey, some people are talking 80 or 90 seats in the House and 5 to 7 in the Senate, who knows? But, unless, there's a big economic turnaround (and even Soros says that won't happen) in the next six months, your friends are due for a long vacation.
Hoosier is concerned. About Democratic spending. The amount of the deficit Obama inherited is irrelevant. But not so concerned I'm willing to bet $100 he didn't notice the deficit actually went down last month.
GREECE!
My God, you actually believe the nonsense you peddle, don't you? The Zero spent more in 1 year than Dubya did in 4 and added more to the deficit in that time than the Republicans did in 8. How stupid do you have to be to think the way out of a hole is dig deeper?
The Zero spent more in 1 year than Dubya did in 4 and added more to the deficit in that time than the Republicans did in 8.
I keep hearing this, but I can't get anyone to give a cite. Do you have?
edutcher said...
The Zero spent more in 1 year than Dubya did in 4 and added more to the deficit in that time than the Republicans did in 8.
Do you have a citation for that? Based on this Heritage foundation chart, I think the assertion that we have spent more in the year since Obama took over (even assuming that FY 2009 should credited to Obama) than in 4 years of Dubya's presidency is pretty clearly bogus. If the numbers and the policy are really that bad (and I am not saying they aren't), why engage in hyperbole or lying about what they actually are?
We won't know for years, but (strictly from a budget/deficit perspective) my guess is that Medicare Part D will end up costing more than Obamacare.
Medicare, like Social Security is an unfunded liability and doesn't factor into the federal debt. It's funded in a seperate manner and yes, it will probably cost more than Obamacare.
And yes Part D was just another example of the faux conservatism that was the Bush administration and the main reason the GOP was sitting in the wilderness.
See, garage and company keep telling me how low my taxes are and I shouldn't be complaining. Well that's like telling me I shouldn't worry about smoking cause I haven't caught cancer yet. Its not if but when because like I said, we cannot continue to spend trillions that we don't have without having to raise taxes either through income or a VAT (or most likely both). This is basic math and I can't understand how someone whose IQ is even a point higher than their shoe size can't grasp that simple fact.
Irene-
I read the article that you linked-did you catch this paragraph:
A recent report from the Southern Poverty Law Center says Patriot groups -- which the center defines as "militias and other extremist organizations that see the federal government as their enemy" -- are on the rise, and it loosely lumps in Tea Party organizations with the hate groups.
Wow-the Southern Poverty Law Center probably only does nuance one way.
ugh.
I keep hearing this, but I can't get anyone to give a cite. Do you have?
What difference would it make? A while back I provided you a cite from the IRS itself proving that almost have of income earners don't pay federal income tax and you still refer to it as a zombie talking point.
@madawaskan: It's that paragraph flickered my tail.
My initial plan for my comment was simply to provide a link to the CNN article.
That "loosely lumps" with "hate groups" association prompted me to expand my thoughts.
I did so because the paragraph also brought to mind NPR's recent exposee on Tea Parties, which pivoted on the Southern Poverty Law Center's focus on the "Rage on the Right."
wv:bitryte. Grrr. RAAAAWRRR.
Actually garage, the crushing reality is going to be the day when we have a Treasury auction and no one shows up. But hey don't let the reality of mathematics and economics get in the way of your dreams of unicorns for everyone.
We'll simply jack up the tax rates to make up for it.
Obama passed 25 separate tax cuts, including $300 billion in middle class tax cuts -- one of the largest in history - as part of the stimulus package.
Unlike President Bush's 2001 tax cuts, which went to the wealthiest 2.2%, President Obama's tax cuts overwhelmingly benefit working and middle class families -- in fact, 95% of all Americans.
Too many Jims - citing the Heritage Foundation is like citing the KKK. Keep trying.
Obama tax cuts biggest in history They just aren't for the wealthy, so Republicans are bitching. Poor rich guys.
Corn Cob - "A while back I provided you a cite from the IRS itself proving that almost have of income earners don't pay federal income tax and you still refer to it as a zombie talking point."
First of all, "cite" is a verb.
Second:
When you say that nearly half of Americans pay no taxes, you apparently disregard the fact that "income taxes" aren’t the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes, investment taxes, state and local taxes.
And of course, you also forget about those who do not make enough to be responsible to pay or...hey, what about all of those seniors who have no incomes at all, or so little income they are not required to pay?
Should we be taxing them?
Anybody making less than $250,000 is paying less now than they were during the Bush years.
That's a "fact," not some bullshit tea bagger drivel you and others throw out to keep that train rolling.
Jeremy - point me to a lowered tax rate for those making under $250K. If you can't then the Obama tax cut isn't anything permanent.
Once again it is not true that people are paying less taxes. They changed the withholding tables not the rates. They did have less taken out each week but had the same ultimate tax liability, just a bill at the end of the year. To say that taxes were "cut" is just a lie.
There has been no reduction of the tax rate no matter how many times you repeat the same talking points.
Irene-
Ha! Ironic I edited out a big "aaaaaarrrrrggggh" from my last comment after reading that CNN "piece".
Anyways-someone should send this video to that Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
NBC Reporter at Tea Party Snoot Fest
He'd probably have a tizzy.
Listen to that condescending, arrogant laugh-yuck!
Those tax cuts weren't cuts, they were credits, another way of saying welfare payment. Ask the people in the 53% actually paying income tax what happened to them. This nonsense of tax rates going down is done by averaging in the 47% that pay nothing. More creative bookkeeping by The Zero.
Too many jims said...
edutcher said...
The Zero spent more in 1 year than Dubya did in 4 and added more to the deficit in that time than the Republicans did in 8.
Do you have a citation for that? Based on this Heritage foundation chart, I think the assertion that we have spent more in the year since Obama took over (even assuming that FY 2009 should credited to Obama) than in 4 years of Dubya's presidency is pretty clearly bogus.
here
"That argument won't fly for two reasons. First, at some point this administration has to take responsibility for itself. It's also not even close to accurate. Consider that from Jan. 20, 2001, to Jan. 20, 2009, the debt held by the public grew $3 trillion under Mr. Bush—to $6.3 trillion from $3.3 trillion at a time when the national economy grew as well.
By comparison, from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion. In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years.
Mr. Obama's spending plan approved by Congress last February calls for doubling the national debt in five years and nearly tripling it in 10.
Mr. Bush's deficits ran an average of 3.2% of GDP, slightly above the post World War II average of 2.7%. Mr. Obama's plan calls for deficits that will average 4.2% over the next decade."
Trooper-
I have an ex-Republican campaign guy in Cali that keeps telling me that when the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire it will be in effect the largest tax increase in forty years-something like that.
Then he says something about capital gains taxes-...anyways it doesn't look pretty.
Real tax cuts means cutting the rates like Bush did. One-time tax credits are designed to win the next election, but people are smarter then that.
Liberals believe in restoring the 1960 tax rates anyways.
The liberal mantra is restore the 1960 90% top marginal rates, because back then we had a strong middle class. No wonder they hate JFK - just a Republican on the inside really.
Look taxpayer, you got a great deal here. Many of you even pay less than nothing. I know, amazing isn't it? Don't worry about who does or if that's fair, just enjoy the prosperity and vote for you-know-who. And don't worry about that small type on the next page. It's a new thing we call an "Adjustable Rate Loan", it makes it very affordable for you. You don't need no money down, and you can borrow double what you asset is. What's not to like? The government is helping you to prosper.
If Obama is cutting taxes, then I assume that's good and it would be bad to raise them later, or hide them and make you pay them through higher prices or lower wages, right?
A cite from Karl Rove edutcher? Jesus H. Christ.
How crazy is it to believe Obama and not Rove. Even if you hate Rove, he lied to less than Obama, and that's just in the first year.
Guantanamo
HCR on CNN
Out of Iraq
Bipartisan
Tax increase on those under $250K
Oh hell, just everything.
edutcher said..."Those tax cuts weren't cuts, they were credits..."
Kind of like the "credits" we issue to corporations?
Exxon - 35 billion in profits last year.
Income taxes = ZERO.
bagoh20 said...
How crazy is it to believe Obama and not Rove. Even if you hate Rove, he lied to less than Obama, and that's just in the first year.
Well, I consider Rove and Company helping lie us into two wars with over 4,000 dead Americans and another 30,000 wounded seems pretty important.
As for the rest of this crap:
Guantanamo - we are closing it, but the timetable has been adjusted to accommodate the politics and obstruction via the GOP
HCR on CNN - ??
Out of Iraq - We are pulling out of Iraq, something you would know if you actually read anything before posting bullshit.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama plans to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of August 2010.
(It's April.)
Between 35,000 to 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq, he said. They would be withdrawn gradually until all U.S. forces are out of Iraq by December 31, 2011 -- the deadline set under an agreement the Bush administration signed with the Iraqi government last year.
*"the deadline set under an agreement the Bush administration signed with the Iraqi government last year."
Bipartisan - Yeah, that GOP is helping out with that. Blaming Obama for their pure obstruction is more bullshit.
Tax increase on those under $250K - Another flat out lie. Post your proof of such.
Oh hell, just plain wing nut tea bagger bullshit.
Alex said..."Real tax cuts means cutting the rates like Bush did."
Yeah, those cuts sure helped out, didn't they?
Once again: Exxon - 35 billion in profits last year. - Income taxes = ZERO.
And were you for that 800 billion dollar bailout little Georgie signed on the way out the door, too?
And everybody whines about unemployment under President Obama, but never appear to mention the fact that unemployment was at 8.5% the day little Georgie scurried back to the ranch.
when you 'inherit' a deficit its common sense to not make it worse.
Unfortunately, Reagan and the two Bushes lacked this particular bit of common sense. Yet somehow the Tea Party demographic was not spurred to protest. I wonder why.
In fact Reagan blazed new trails in raising the deficit during peacetime.
Jeremy said...
edutcher said..."Those tax cuts weren't cuts, they were credits..."
Kind of like the "credits" we issue to corporations?
Exxon - 35 billion in profits last year.
Income taxes = ZERO.
You get no argument from me as to there should be a lot less of that, but were any of those oil credits for stuff like green energy sources or oil exploration?
Supposedly, that sort of thing is in your ballpark more than mine. The same people who write the punitive tax laws also write the goodies, so it's interesting to pin down the blame.
Corporate taxes are something of a different animal. I used to work for the IRS and their taxes are on different forms under different schedules (1065 and 1041, for example, as opposed to the various flavors of 1040). Not sure a corporation pays "income" taxes in the same sense an individual does.
In any case, I'd like to see your source (not casting aspersions, just like to see your documentation). I find it difficult to believe an outfit like Exxon pays no tax at all.
former law student-
Here-read this a couple of times-
Under Obama's budget plan, the USA's debt in 2020 would be nearly the size of the entire economy then. Interest costs would be $900 billion, five times today's level.
This from USA Today just four days ago.
Obama has outdone all of them.
I already have posted it here a couple of times-feel welcome to address it.
You can call Erskin Bowles a liar, or USA Today liars-give it a go.
Explain it away-and try to figure out how it's all going to be peachy.
"Exxon - 35 billion in profits last year."
You don't really believe those profits were not taxed do you?
You mean they were not double or triple taxed. All the people who that profit employs pay taxes. The profit is reinvested in more economic growth and innovation which is taxed again. If not for the profit, it would all be gone.
You can tax those profits more, but the result is less business activity (jobs) from Exxon, higher fuel prices for us (regressive tax), less economic activity to tax in the economy.
Good side? Well, I don't know since in the big picture you reduce jobs, growth, and even tax revenue. I just don't know why you would want that.
Alex - Wall Street Journal:
Sen. Obama's plan repeals a portion of the tax cuts passed in the last eight years for families making over $250,000. But to be clear: He would leave their tax rates at or below where they were in the 1990s.
- The top two income-tax brackets would return to their 1990s levels of 36% and 39.6% (including the exemption and deduction phase-outs). All other brackets would remain as they are today.
- The top capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 would return to 20% -- the lowest rate that existed in the 1990s and the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut. A 20% rate is almost a third lower than the rate President Reagan set in 1986.
- The tax rate on dividends would also be 20% for families making more than $250,000, rather than returning to the ordinary income rate. This rate would be 39% lower than the rate President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut and would be lower than all but five of the last 92 years we have been taxing dividends.
- The estate tax would be effectively repealed for 99.7% of estates, and retained at a 45% rate for estates valued at over $7 million per couple. This would cut the number of estates covered by the tax by 84% relative to 2000.
Overall, the top 1% of households -- people with an average income of $1.6 million per year -- would see their average federal income and payroll tax rate increase from 21% today to 24%, less than the 25% these households would have paid under the tax laws of the late 1990s.
His plan would not raise any taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year, nor on any single person with income under $200,000 -- not income taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend or payroll taxes.
bagoh20 said...in regard to: Exxon - 35 billion in profits last year."
"You don't really believe those profits were not taxed do you?"
Why don't you ever do some research before posting such drivel?
Forbes magazine: What the top U.S. corporations paid in taxes last year....
Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi.
No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.
And then we have G.E.:
“Most egregious,” Forbes notes, is General Electric, which “generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam.
In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.” Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS:
edutcher - Exxon paid NO TAXES to Uncle Sam.
ALL 14 billion went to foreign governments.
Reagan tripled the national debt and Bush doubled it again.
Hammering at President Obama, with what he was left with, is disingenuous and pure right wing bullshit.
Reagan's $749 billion supply-side tax cuts in 1981 a massive budget deficit. Then combined with his rapid increase in defense spending, Reagan delivered even bigger, record-settings deficits.
Then, because of the shortfalls in tax revenues, he raised taxes twice to avert financial catastrophe. By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan nonetheless more than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history.
And then we have little Georgie W...
He inherited a federal budget in the "black," with a CBO forecast for a $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years...and immediately dismantled the process.
His $1.4 trillion tax cut in 2001, followed by a $550 billion second round in 2003, accounted for the bulk of the yawning budget deficits he produced.
And even before the passage of the Wall Street bailout, Bush had presided over a $4 trillion increase in the national debt, a 71% jump.
The Bush tax cuts delivered a third of their total benefits to the wealthiest 1% of Americans. And the $2 trillion price tag for his giveaway to the richest dwarfs the estimated $900 billion cost over 10 years of President Obama's health care proposals.
*Oh, and the two wars he got us into will account for about 7 trillion dollars of the deficit over the next ten years.
Obama has outdone all of them.
Obama's simply holding the hot potato when the music stopped. Twenty years of GOP tax cuts matched with increasing spending provided Keynesian stimulus all the years we didn't need it.
Then when the economy was in crisis, Obama discovered that Bush had left a bunch of IOUs in the piggy bank. The nest egg had been squandered in Vegas.
Rock <--> Obama <--> hard place.
Jeremy said...
edutcher - Exxon paid NO TAXES to Uncle Sam.
ALL 14 billion went to foreign governments.
Sounds like some of your guys have been laying down on the job. The Republicans are supposed to be pro-business (in theory, at least), but, if you believe the Demos should be socking it to business, then I'd look a little harder at what's been going on the last twenty years or so. The Demos have run the House at least 8 of those years and that's where the Ways and Means Committee is. As I say, I'll bet some of those credits are green.
edutcher - The GOP has controlled Congress for 12 of the past 14 years...and the WHite House for 8 of the past nine.
And I didn't see anybody posting comments relating to the Democrats "socking it to business."
I think most Americans, even the wing nuts here, would appreciate major corporations paying their fair share, and not setting up companies all over the fucking planet to avoid paying taxes here.
You appear to have no real argument, a real shocker, so you resort to the usual wing nut reoutine of blaming Democrats.
Other than when dealing with your tea bagger buddies...GFL with that one.
Pure obstruction:
Mitch McConnell has rounded up the necessary votes to block Democrats from bringing Wall Street reform to the Senate floor, a spokesman for the Senate Minority Leader said on Friday afternoon.
Senate Majority Leader Harry (D-Nev.) said on Thursday he planned to bring the bill to the floor next week where it would be debated and amendments added. McConnell has now persuaded 41 Republicans to vote against debating reform.
Jeremy said...
edutcher - The GOP has controlled Congress for 12 of the past 14 years...and the WHite House for 8 of the past nine.
And I didn't see anybody posting comments relating to the Democrats "socking it to business."
I think most Americans, even the wing nuts here, would appreciate major corporations paying their fair share, and not setting up companies all over the fucking planet to avoid paying taxes here.
You appear to have no real argument, a real shocker, so you resort to the usual wing nut reoutine of blaming Democrats.
I don't know where you've been, but there have been plenty of comments about the Demos socking it to business. Not on Kos or Puffington, maybe, but certainly here. The reason those companies have moved offshore is because people like The Zero and Henry Waxman have devoted their lives to making it as difficult as possible to do business in thsi country. Zero even referred to private enterprise as the enemy - his words, not mine.
Most of the things to which you object could not get done without Democrat help. Saying the Republicans controlled Congress for 12 years doesn't fly, and you know it. The Demos controlled the Senate for at least 2 years of Dubya's reign.
You want to be mad at the Republicans, go ahead, but, until you're ready to look at the conduct of the Democrats, as well, you're the one blowing smoke. This nonsense of, "It's all the Republicans' fault", is for 3 year olds. Anyone who knows how Congress works knows that, in most times, deals are struck between the parties.
There are plenty of Republicans, myself among them, who have no time for a lot of the Republican slugs in Congress and have been active in the primary process trying to weed them out. If you stopped that infantile 'tea bagger' nonsense and looked at who the movement dislikes - and there are plenty of Republicans in that list - you might come to realize that you're just another hypocrite unless you want to investigate your own house, too.
You just want to point a sanctimonious finger and feel self-righteous. OK, fine, but all you end up doing is making a fool of yourself.
Post a Comment